• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ernest

Banned
The Distraction theory got debunked in my eyes when it became clear that every "intentional" distraction was just as bad for optics if not worse than whatever is supposedly being distracted from.

"Let's get the heat off of this Healthcare bill by making everyone think I abused my power to blackmail news anchors into giving me fluff pieces!"

His approval has only been dropping over time. If this is an intended strategy it's working very poorly.
Agreed.

People see a connection with the timing of his tweets to some other controversy, but...
correlation does not = causation

Just because he regularly (always) tweets something controversial at the same time something else controversial is going on, does not mean he has a plan or is doing it to distract (again, I agree it may, to a certain degree, distract). But it doesn't mean he has a plan.

There is always something controversial going on in his regime. Always. And he is always tweeting. Always.

And I'm getting tired of the "distraction" argument with the suggestion that it is helping him. It is a distraction but I don't see it helping in any way. And coverage is still there.

We all know what is going on with healthcare. If you don't you have your head in the sand. Are the tweets distracting any of the Russia investigations? Is Mueller suddenly not looking at specific links of his clan that may have been involved in the Russia hacks? You think Mueller is just going to forget Trump fired Comey over the Russian investigation?

What exactly do we not know about that he has successfully covered up due to the tweets?

Heck I just read an interesting and detailed article on his EO and Space Program. It was really a bunch of pomp and circumstance, but it was interesting. Maybe it got some legs because he obviously has never seen Toy Story, understands what "infinity" means, or that both him and the VP introduced only 3 of the 4 astronauts present. And the one they forgot of course was a woman. I'm sure they didn't even know women could be astronauts.

Sometimes, most of the time, the simplest explanation is the truth. He is an unhinged idiot.
 
How would you guys rank the people in the most legal trouble?

To me it seems like

1.Flynn
2.Manafort
3.Page
4.Trump
5.Sessions
6.Kushner


For what? Trump can get nailed for a lot more than the rest mostly due to his financial ties and practices. For any Russian collusion he may rank rather low due to him not having many direct collusion. However, if many of them gets charged for crimes related to Russian collusion; the question will raise about exactly how much Trump had an hand in directing his people to colluded.

I think the investigation is about the 2016 election, maybe not a lot of evidence, but before the election there might be a lot more assuming the dossier was true about Trump was being cultivated by the Russians for years. Don't know if that will lead to financial and corruption charges or charges related to the 2016 election.
 

That 1st reply

DDvW8tGXUAAdi5H
 

Wilsongt

Member
How would you guys rank the people in the most legal trouble?

To me it seems like

1.Flynn
2.Manafort
3.Page
4.Trump
5.Sessions
6.Kushner

Trump and Sessions no where on that list, at the moment. Sessions is a senate darling and you need to get past the top 3 to get to them.
 
I'm growing increasingly tired with the CNN v Trump fake news cycles where they act indignant but still actively paying morons on their network to defend the tweets he makes.
 
I'm growing increasingly tired with the CNN v Trump fake news cycles where they act indignant but still actively paying morons on their network to defend the tweets he makes.

I stopped watching them a while ago, its the same thing over and over. Trump says/does something stupid, bring in 2 people to tell people how stupid it was, bring in 2 people to say either "but hillary" or "But obama".

The only silver lining is that this strategy has put Fox News into third place.
 

Zolo

Member
I'm growing increasingly tired with the CNN v Trump fake news cycles where they act indignant but still actively paying morons on their network to defend the tweets he makes.

The weird feeling where you know it's right to condemn the president for this, but also know CNN is cheering at this to boost their ratings.
 
Forgive me if I'm not up to date on how busted Senate rules have become, but if the ACA originally took 60 votes to pass, wouldn't an outright repeal out it requite 60? If possible, wouldn't it set up making it ridiculously easy to undo literally any bill the majority party didn't like from the past?
 

Makai

Member
Forgive me if I'm not up to date on how busted Senate rules have become, but if the ACA originally took 60 votes to pass, wouldn't an outright repeal out it requite 60? If possible, wouldn't it set up making it ridiculously easy to undo literally any bill the majority party didn't like from the past?
There's some balance issues.
 
Forgive me if I'm not up to date on how busted Senate rules have become, but if the ACA originally took 60 votes to pass, wouldn't an outright repeal out it requite 60? If possible, wouldn't it set up making it ridiculously easy to undo literally any bill the majority party didn't like from the past?

Parliamentarian doesn't care and stealth enabled the nuclear option for dismantling government programs. Hopefully this Congress teaches the Dems that their precious Senate rules are meaningless to the GOP.
 

Ogodei

Member
Forgive me if I'm not up to date on how busted Senate rules have become, but if the ACA originally took 60 votes to pass, wouldn't an outright repeal out it requite 60? If possible, wouldn't it set up making it ridiculously easy to undo literally any bill the majority party didn't like from the past?

A full repeal would take 60, yes. A partial repeal would only take 50.
 
Curious how that would be ruled.

Curiously, Mueller's team includes a venerable Constitutional lawyer who's argued before the Court numerous times.

But let's suppose that the Court rules a sitting president can be indicted. Then what? Unless they rule that a "normal" conviction carries the same penalty as an impeachment conviction, removal from office, he could just serve from prison or some shit. Then he'd be a fucking martyr victimized by a "deep state coup" or whatever shit they'd say.
 

royalan

Member
Part of me wonders if Trump's latest temper tantrum isn't because there's some big story coming down the pipeline (although I'm sure there is), but because this last week was one of those first in a LONG time that wasn't focused on Trump.

The healthcare fight took center stage all last week, and for once the attention seemed to be focused squarely on Republicans themselves.
 
Part of me wonders if Trump's latest temper tantrum isn't because there's some big story coming down the pipeline (although I'm sure there is), but because this last week was one of those first in a LONG time that wasn't focused on Trump.

The healthcare fight took center stage all last week, and for once the attention seemed to be focused squarely on Republicans themselves.

Seems like his normal behavior the last couple of years to me.
 
Part of me wonders if Trump's latest temper tantrum isn't because there's some big story coming down the pipeline (although I'm sure there is), but because this last week was one of those first in a LONG time that wasn't focused on Trump.

The healthcare fight took center stage all last week, and for once the attention seemed to be focused squarely on Republicans themselves.

Trump has a ego the size of a plant. He might be upset that he is not the center of attention.
 

Random Human

They were trying to grab your prize. They work for the mercenary. The masked man.
Part of me wonders if Trump's latest temper tantrum isn't because there's some big story coming down the pipeline (although I'm sure there is), but because this last week was one of those first in a LONG time that wasn't focused on Trump.

The healthcare fight took center stage all last week, and for once the attention seemed to be focused squarely on Republicans themselves.
This is probably a decent theory.
 

Wilsongt

Member
A top White House official said Sunday “we’re getting close” to having the votes needed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare.

During an interview on Fox News Sunday, President Trump’s director of legislative affairs Marc Short said a vote could take place soon after the July 4 recess.
“We are at the point of scoring two separate bills throughout the course of this recess this week,” Short said. “So, we hope that we come back the week after recess, we’ll have a vote.”

He added that if Republicans find that the “replacement part too difficult for the pulpits to come together” that they should still move ahead with repealing Obamacare and come up with a replacement later. Both approaches contradict what President Donald Trump said on the campaign trail when he vowed “insurance for everybody” and White House counselor Kellyanne Conway’s promise that no one would lose coverage.

Short also suggested that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s credibility “should be certainly questioned” regarding its projection that 22 million people would be left uninsured within the decade because of the GOP bill, echoing what the White House previously claimed.

https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-marc-short-not-losing-thats-choosing-health-care-9354c0ad052b
 

At least Bannon has some actual principles (even if he's a Neo Nazi fuck with the immune system of The Infected).

Cohn and Mnuchin aren't bluffing when they say they want to slash the corporate tax rate to 15% from the current 35%. Neither man has any interest in timid tax cuts, and they wager that special interests will relinquish their loopholes if they become convinced their tax rate really will be in the teens.

They're becoming far less wedded to revenue neutrality — the idea, favored by House and Senate Republican leadership, that tax cuts mustn't add to the deficit.

Lol of course they are. It's a farce.
 
Here we go again
Tbf I don't trust the White House of all places when they're talking about whip counting, they clearly don't know or care. If it fails their god can just whine about it on Twitter, everyone wins!

Also this reads like some McConnell was smiling shit.

Mark my words, repeal with no replace isn't happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom